The ‘good food’ movement transforms food labeling

What do we mean by the Good Food Movement? “The Food Movement. In a nutshell, encompasses the many people across America who have become passionately engaged with how their food is made and where it comes from”. Steve Armstrong | Oct 01, 2018

The reason we’re having this conversation is because like the terms ‘natural’ and ‘healthy, ‘good food’ and ‘clean labels’ mean different things to different people. It truly is a case of the value being in the eye of the beholder. ‘

Food manufacturers and regulatory agencies find this approach chaotic, That’s because they don’t really have any guidelines for translating consumer expectations about a food product onto its corresponding label,

That’s why there’s talk about a new “Process Label” As food production and consumption has become more complex, consumers have driven demand for food certifications. We have organic, GMO Free, Gluten Free, Cruelty Free and the list of 626 types of food certification labels goes on. You don’t need a scorecard, you need an app.

Consumers may not always know what’s in their best interest when it comes to convenience eating, but there are certainly enough of them to make traditional food brands like Campbell’s crumble and reorganize.

They and other processed food giants are finding it increasingly difficult to source new supply chains or retool processes to match the speed and depth of consumer self and planetary interests.

Steve Armstrong takes us on a deep dive into the morass of complexities confronting producers, regulators and consumers. Caveat Emptor!

According a new report from Label Insight and the Food Marketing Institute (FMI), grocery shoppers exhibit loyalty to products that create deeper relationships through information exchange,.

The Transparency Imperative report found that shoppers increasingly demand transparency and a closer connection to their food, so much so that 75% are more likely to switch to a brand that provides more in-depth product information, beyond what’s provided on the physical label. When shoppers were asked the same question in 2016 in a similar study by Label Insight, just 39% agreed they would switch brands.

Plant-based eating is cost-effective, reduces economic costs, such as hospital admissions and doctors’ bills, as well as increasing the number of healthy years people live.

Billions of euro could be saved from a country’s annual health bill if more people can be persuaded to follow a plant-based diet, according to new research published in the Journal of Nutrition. Also society overall will benefit due to less absenteeism from work.

The study looked at the health and economic consequences of two plant-based eating patterns, a diet with a daily portion of soya foods and a Mediterranean-style diet.

The study suggests the British government could reduce its healthcare and societal costs over the next 20 years by £5.21 billion if just 10% of the UK population would emphasize plant-based foods in their diet. Cost savings could be as high as £7.54 billion if 10% of the UK population could be encouraged to incorporate soya products in their daily diet.

“Our research demonstrates that increasing plant-based eating is cost-effective, reduces economic costs, such as hospital admissions and doctors’ bills, as well as increasing the number of healthy years people live, and enabling them to continue having an active life,” said Lieven Annemans, professor of health economics at Ghent University, and the lead author of the paper. “Our study has the potential to contribute to the way healthy eating is promoted,” he added.

There are different approaches to plant-based eating, from Mediterranean-type diets through to vegetarian and veganism. Plant-based eating is in line with the latest government dietary guidelines, the Eatwell Guide. In other words, plant-based eating does not have to exclude all animal products, but places plant-based foods such as soya, fruits, vegetables, wholegrains, nuts, seeds and vegetable oils at the core of the diet.

The researchers carried out an extensive review of the scientific literature and concluded that both plant-based and soya eating patterns reduce the risk of diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, stroke and certain cancers. Diets containing soya demonstrated the most favorable health effects from the two evaluated plant-based food patterns.

The researchers calculated the impact of these plant-based food patterns on ‘quality adjusted life years’ (QALYs), which estimate the number of expected years of good health. To calculate disease costs, a societal perspective was taken, including direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are those directly associated with the disease or related conditions including costs related to diagnosis and treatment. Indirect costs include employment related elements such as absenteeism, and productivity loss due to sickness.

For the UK, a diet containing soya is estimated to yield 159 QALYs and 100 QALYs per 1,000 women and men, respectively. Similarly, adherence to a plant-based Mediterranean-type diet also results in living longer in good health and cost-savings to society.

Professor Ian Rowland, professor in nutrition from Reading University, supported the findings of the new study and commented: “Emphasizing plant-based foods in your diet can help to improve nutrition and meet current dietary recommendations. More plant-based eating helps against a variety of diseases which many people are currently confronted with. In addition to the personal health benefits, it can also help reduce society’s healthcare costs.”

This study provides yet more reasons to eat more plant-based foods and is in line with the UK ‘Eatwell guide’ which champions plant-based foods for good health and sustainability. It follows a report published by the Sustainable Food Trust in November – The Hidden Cost Of UK Food – which found that poor diets add 37p of healthcare costs to every £1 spent on food.

Environmental Working Group Database Reveals 16,000 Foods That May Be Packaged with BPA

WASHINGTON––For consumers who want to avoid bisphenol A, EWG unveiled an easily searchable database of more than 16,000 food and beverage items that may come in cans, bottles or jars containing the hormone-disrupting chemical, better known as BPA. The list was compiled from a little-known food industry inventory and is now available at EWG’s Food Scores database.

BPA acts like estrogen in the body and is especially dangerous for pregnant women and children in critical stages of development. Independent scientific studies link it to cancer, infertility, diabetes, obesity and brain, nerve and heart disorders, and it’s just been listed by California as a chemical known to cause reproductive problems.

“No other industry in the world is more adept at marketing products to its customers than food and beverage companies––except apparently when it comes to informing them about the possible presence of a toxic chemical linked to hormone disruption and cancer,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “So we decided to give them a little help in making their own data accessible. Our new database shines a light on just how pervasive BPA is in our food system, and will help Americans navigate the supermarket armed with more information.”

Most concern about BPA has focused on its use in plastic bottles and canned food linings. But the voluminous list of products brought to light by EWG shows that Americans are exposed to BPA in food packaging far more widely than previously known. The array of products from 926 brands includes:

The lids of glass jars for baby food, pickles, jelly, salsa and other condiments;

California officials added the hormone disrupting chemical to the Proposition 65 list, which requires warnings on products with listed chemicals. The state allowed instead for generic warning signs at checkout registers that don’t name specific products.

Food companies set up a website with a list of products, but made little effort to publicize it. The website is a chaotic jumble––incomplete, inconsistent, poorly organized and not searchable.

EWG downloaded files from the industry website, which were in a variety of non-compatible formats, then extracted the brand names, product descriptions and barcodes. The data was then matched against information in Food Scores, and the matches were hand-reviewed to ensure accuracy.

Despite the mounting evidence of BPA’s health risks at very low doses, federal regulation is lagging. EWG urges regulators and lawmakers at the state and federal levels to regulators, federal and state lawmakers to look at the evidence and reassess BPA’s use in the U.S. food supply.

you need to make healthy choices

Get Nutrition News Online All Year Long

Our readers are self aware and focused on a full, vital and abundant life.

They realize the importance of their health for a rich and rewarding life.

They pay attention to what works. They make connections between actions and results.

For 40 years our readers, people just like you, have turned to Nutrition News for

advertising free, easy to understand information about

healthy foods and nutritional supplements.

We review, edit and publish compelling content about nutritional research and trends in optimal health.

We showcase, share and support health outreach initiatives of all kinds.

The inquiry into optimal health is naturally engaging.

We make healthy behaviors easy and fun.

Two Regulations Just To Explain Food Claims Used On Product Labels

How much of a bigger share from the Universe Of Food could we get if we talked more about the benefits of what it is we’re trying to regulate.

The most direct path to an intended outcome is to regulate for what you want. Seems like we have too many competing interests to agree on a simple, true story.

Food has been pretty cool for a long time now. We’re starting to realize just how important it really is. If they’re going through this much trouble in Europe, no wonder, clean, simple food is catching on and the packaged goods market is scrambling to keep up.

European Commission published two regulations just to explain and determine approved claims to be used in food products labels, and one regulation regarding the consumer protection and detailed information about the label content. The regulations are better described below:

This isn’t meant to put anyone to sleep.It’s a sign that food and nutrition are becoming so important that multiple interests are keenly aware of how much power consumers are beginning to exert when it comes to food choices. An educated consumer is a healthy consumer. We don’t need a tracker to know where that leads.

Nutritional Claim Conditions Applying

LOW ENERGY A claim that a food is low in energy, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product does not contain more than 40 kcal (170 kJ)/100 g for solids or more than 20 kcal (80 kJ)/100 ml for liquids. For table-top sweeteners the limit of 4 kcal (17 kJ)/portion, with equivalent sweetening properties to 6 g of sucrose (approximately one teaspoon of sucrose), applies.

ENERGY-REDUCED A claim that a food is energy-reduced, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the energy value is reduced by at least 30 %, with an indication of the characteristic(s) which make(s) the food reduced in its total energy value.

ENERGY-FREE A claim that a food is energy-free, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product does not contain more than 4 kcal (17 kJ)/100 ml. For table-top sweeteners the limit of 0,4 kcal (1,7 kJ)/portion, with equivalent sweetening properties to 6 g of sucrose (approximately one teaspoon of sucrose), applies.

SOURCE OF (NAME OF VITAMIN/S) AND/OR (NAME OF MINERAL/S) A claim that a food is a source of vitamins and/or minerals, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product contains at least a significant amount as defined in the Annex to Directive 90/496/EEC or an amount provided for by derogations granted according to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods (1).

HIGH (NAME OF VITAMIN/S) AND/OR (NAME OF MINERAL/S) A claim that a food is high in vitamins and/or minerals, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product contains at least twice the value of ‘source of (NAME OF VITAMIN/S) and/or (NAME OF MINERAL/S)’.

CONTAINS (NAME OF THE NUTRIENT OR OTHER SUBSTANCE) A claim that a food contains a nutrient or another substance, for which specific conditions are not laid down in this Regulation, or any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product complies with all the applicable provisions of this Regulation, and in particular Article 5. For vitamins and minerals the conditions of the claim ‘source of’ shall apply.

INCREASED (NAME OF THE NUTRIENT) A claim stating that the content in one or more nutrients, other than vitamins and minerals, has been increased, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product meets the conditions for the claim ‘source of’ and the increase in content is at least 30 % compared to a similar product.

REDUCED (NAME OF THE NUTRIENT) A claim stating that the content in one or more nutrients has been reduced, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the reduction in content is at least 30 % compared to a similar product, except for micronutrients where a 10 % difference in the reference values as set in Council Directive 90/496/EEC shall be acceptable and for sodium, or the equivalent value for salt, where a 25 % difference shall be acceptable.

can be used in advertising and promotional materials,

protected by the First Amendment and New York state law.

This sets a significant precedent.

A federal appeals court found that opinions about scientific studies,

at least when two private parties are involved in cases involving the Lanham Act,

is protected free speech.

If you say that a food is healthy and may help protect against heart disease, diabetes, or arthritis,

your words have magically changed that food into a drug.

And, guess what, that’s illegal.

Now you’ve created an illegal drug and that’s a crime

Free Speech Win For Scientific Conclusions in Federal Court

So why after all these years have we not shared all that great research about how food and nutrition can impact public health, access to food and opportunity as well as workforce development? Where are we today? Take a look at the disruption in our food sector. Amazon buying Whole Foods and thousands of small scale rural and urban growers building local food systems.

In this case, the manufacturer of a lung surfactant—a detergent-like agent that reduces the surface tension of the liquid film covering the inner lining of the lung’s small air sacs (alveoli) to help keep lungs from collapsing and help patients breathe better—brought a false advertising suit against a competitor.

The lawsuit alleged that the competitor paid for research designed to show that the competitor’s product was superior; that the findings were false and deceptive; and that the competitor disseminated those findings through an article published in a scientific journal and through promotional material citing the article’s conclusions.

The plaintiff didn’t claim that the competitor distorted the article’s findings, but that the findings themselves were inaccurate, and by publishing them, the plaintiffs suffered damage.

The main question was whether the defendant’s statements about the study were false and misleading under the Lanham Act, which is the primary federal trademark law in the US (the court also looked at this under NY state law).

They didn’t consider the question of whether the study findings themselves were false—only whether their statements about the study were false or misleading. The panel ruled against the plaintiff and found that the defendant did not misrepresent the research findings, and ruled the defendant’s statements to be scientific “opinion,” not fact, and therefore protected speech under the First Amendment.

This sets a significant precedent. A federal appeals court found that opinions about scientific studies, at least when two private parties are involved in cases involving the Lanham Act, is protected free speech.

Increasingly, the FTC appears to be applying the FDA’s pharmaceutical approach toward all health claims, including those for food or supplements, via consent decrees, as we discussed last year. These consent decrees are requiring manufacturers to obtain the FDA’s approval of any health claims prior to making them in advertising, and are insisting on a standard of double random controlled studies. In effect, the FTC seems to be doing what the FDA itself would like to do but is barred from doing. It seems to be an end-run around FDA law.

Given this background of increasing government censorship of science, this latest court ruling is very welcome. Companies cannot afford the millions of dollars needed to take a natural, non-patentable product through the FDA drug approval process in order to establish health claims. However, there is a lot of valid scientific literature explaining benefits of natural products, and companies should be able to use it for advertising purposes to inform the public without threat of fines or even jail.

This was the logic behind our push for Free Speech About Science (FSAS). A bill to reintroduce the Free Speech About Science Act is currently being redrafted. We will keep you posted as things. A resurrection is long overdue.

Is The FDA Losing It’s Mind?

Here’s an example from recent history that speaks to how far certain interests will go to separate us from our food. Before any science came along to validate the idea that food is the key driver to human health and development.

Why is it that after the scientific validation for nutrition, vitamins, minerals, amino acids, as the building blocks for all life, and that they comprise our food, why wouldn’t that story be worth shouting from the rooftops?

What if the foods we all eat got to tell it’s nutritional bona fides as medicine? Or, at the very least, beneficial and highly recommended for health and wellness. Thanks to CathyBurt at TimberJay.com for the alert on the FDA losing it’s mind.

The FDA Wants To Make Cherries, Walnuts Into Illegal Drugs

The FDA has sent a warning letter to the president and CEO of Diamond Foods stating that the firm’s packages of shelled walnuts are “in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act”. Why? Because Diamond Foods dared to list some of the health benefits of walnuts on its website. Health benefits which have been scientifically researched and proven. The FDA says that the walnuts are being “promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation and treatment of disease”.

In other words, if you say that a food is healthy and may help protect against heart disease, diabetes, or arthritis, your words have magically changed that food into a drug. And, guess what, that’s illegal. Now you’ve created an illegal drug and that’s a crime

Common sense alone should tell you that walnuts, cherries, pomegranates and green tea are foods, not drugs.

Even though potato chips are mostly a deep fried snack food, with no scientifically proven health benefits, the FDA has no problem with FritoLay listing on its website some of what they claim are the health benefits of potato chips. We all know that carbohydrates fried in fat and covered with salt are just not healthy to eat. Plus they definitely won’t give you the GMO Free certification to go along with all their other nutritional needs products. Can anyone say “Gluten Free” ?

This certainly seems like a FDA double standard and it is just not acceptable for a government agency to disregard its own mission of educating the public and promoting health.

The Free Speech about Science Act (HR 4913) was a bipartisan bill introduced into the House of Representatives on March 23, 2010. This legislation protects basic free speech rights, ends censorship of science and enables the natural foods and health products community to share peer-reviewed scientific findings with the public. The bill had the potential to educate the public about the real science behind natural health. This would have enabled the public to have access to credible information that they can use to make wise dietary choices. It died. It was reintroduced and it died again.